Jump to content

Talk:Child abuse/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Unintentional neglect not considered "abuse"?

The only source that supports the statement "usually because child neglect may be unintentional" "Some health professionals and authors consider neglect as part of the definition of abuse, while others do not; this is because the harm may have been unintentional, or because the caregivers did not understand the severity of the problem" [note: disputed wording clarified, 18:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)] is this chapter by one Aisha Mehnaz [note: even this source describes neglect as a type of "abuse"; see p. 100. 08:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)]. The quoted passage from Friedman and Billick 2014 certainly does not imply this; it makes clear that unintentional harm is only one of several factors that make child neglect "difficult to define". This statement has other problems, too: the source uses extremely poor English for a published book—"as it is often considered unintentional and arise from a lack of knowledge or awareness [...] and often it results in insurmountable problem being faced by the parents"(!?) This certainly raises a red flag as to its reliability. Who is this Aisha Mehnaz? What makes him or her a reliable source? In contrast, the National Research Council, in Understanding Child Abuse and Neglect (1993), cites an earlier definition of child maltreatment as "actions and omissions, ones that are intentional and ones that are unintentional" (p. 59). The fact that maltreatment (which includes neglect) can be unintentional is reiterated in the CDC statement I mentioned above by the CDC in Child Maltreatment Surveillance (2006): "Like acts of commission, harm to a child may or may not be the intended consequence [of neglect]" (p.11). In the absence of other reliable sources explicitly emphasizing unintentionality as the reason some authors do not consider neglect to be a type of abuse, the statement "usually because child neglect may be unintentional" gives undue weight to the Mehnaz chapter and its conclusions. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Given the sources I provided in the #Discussion section above, why do you argue that the Menhaz book source is the only source that notes that child neglect can be unintentional? As for the authors of that book, there is an "About the author" section. This Friedman and Billick review article that I included is also clear that child neglect can be unintentional. So are a variety of other sources. The unintentional aspect is a part of the debate regarding the inconsistent definitions about child neglect. What do you take "unintentional harm is only one of several factors that make child neglect 'difficult to define'" to mean? Have you even read the entire source? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The disputed statement is "..others do not [define neglect as abuse]; this is because the harm may have been unintentional..." None of the other sources mentioned directly support this statement. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Contrast the above with Crosson-Tower, 2008, who writes, "The difficulty in defining neglect is threefold. First, it differs from other forms of maltreatment in that it it is an act of omission [...] Second, there are many types of behavior or omissions in childcare and supervision that can be included under the term neglect [...] And finally, neglect must be considered as it relates to the developmental level of the child in question" (p. 68) and "Neglect is a type of maltreatment which is so dependent on cultural child rearing values as well as variations in the neighborhood, the community, and indeed by the cultural, economic, and political values of society itself" (p. 73). Also see WHO, "Child abuse and neglect by parents and other caregivers", which states, "Any global approach to child abuse must take into account the differing standards and expectations for parenting behaviour in the range of cultures around the world [...] Some researchers have suggested that views on child-rearing across cultures might diverge to such an extent that agreement on what practices are abusive or neglectful may be extremely difficult to reach" (p. 59) and "Many researchers include neglect or harm caused by a lack of care on the part of parents or other caregivers as part of the definition of abuse" (p. 65). Friedman and Billick (2014) state that "Factors that make child neglect difficult to define include: (1) Cultural differences; motives must be taken into account because parents may believe they are acting in the child’s best interests based on cultural beliefs (2) the fact that the effect of child abuse is not always immediately visible; the effects of emotional neglect specifically may not be apparent until later in the child’s development, and (3) the large spectrum of actions that fall under the category of child abuse". All this is a far cry from stating or implying that neglect may not be considered a form of abuse by authors, researchers, etc. because it may be unintentional. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Plus, McCoy and Keen (2014) point out that "when some authors write of child abuse, they often mean both abuse and neglect" (p. 3). The three boldface excerpts in this section together contradict Mehnaz's view that "Many do not consider neglect a kind of abuse [...] as it is often considered unintentional" (p. 101). —Coconutporkpie (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are getting at. Some sources you've cited even use the words "child abuse and neglect" as to distinguish the matter. And I'm well-aware of what the McCoy and Keen (2014) source states; I'm the one who cited it in the Discussion section above. At first, it seemed like you were simply doubting that child neglect may not be considered child abuse in cases where the harm was unintentional. And now it almost seems like you are doubting that child neglect may not be considered child abuse, even though the literature, including sources I've cited, are clear that it might not be...depending on the definition. By that, I mean that I never stated or indicated that I believe that child abuse never means both abuse and neglect; in fact, I've stated just the opposite in the #Using the word child maltreatment instead of child abuse, and the Definitions section section, by noting more than once that child abuse and child maltreatment are commonly used interchangeably. So why you are quoting the McCoy and Keen (2014) source is beyond me.
That one of the reasons child neglect may not be considered abuse is because the harm may have been unintentional or accidental is supported in the literature, including by the Friedman and Billick source. "Neglect" is often differentiated from "abuse" because the parents may not understand they are harming the child or that what they doing is wrong, or because of poverty (or a number of other reasons), which equates to "unintentional harm." For instance (ranging from older sources to newer sources), this 2010 (reprint) Law in the Health and Human Services source, from Simon and Schuster, page 314, relays, "Some states differentiate between abuse——more serious harm or that involving nonaccidental physical injury—and neglect—less serious harm." This 2010 Forensic Nursing Science source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 1199, relays, "State statutes of what is considered abuse may vary in terms of 'harm or threatened harm' in a child's health (National Clearing - house on Child Abuse and Neglect, 2003a). In addition, the states may differ on exemptions, which may include, for instance, a religious exemption, cultural practice, corporal punishment, and poverty. Many states include the terms abandonment and intentional harm versus unintentional harm in their definitions of child abuse and neglect." This 2014 Encyclopedia of the Neurological Sciences source, from Academic Press, page 774, states, "Maltreatment of children includes neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, and emotional maltreatment. [...] Often, injuries that are suspicious for physical abuse or neglect must be distinguished from 'unintentional' or accidental injuries. With possible physical abuse injuries, the possibility that an underlying medical condition has contributed must be considered. With neglect, the contribution of poverty must be taken into account." This 2015 Mandatory Reporting Laws and the Identification of Severe Child Abuse and Neglect source, from Springer Publishers, page 220, states, "Mandatory reporting becomes an even more challenging issue in the face of scarce resources and the fact that even in discussing and writing about neglect, it is often separated from abuse. For example, in discussing maltreatment, one usually hears the phrase 'abuse' and 'neglect' rather than child maltreatment. For some, neglect may not be as 'serious' as inflicted trauma or sexual abuse (Wald 2013). For others, it may be considered the result of, or associated with, poverty and the ripple effects of poverty, including poor access to health care, undernutrition, dysfunctional families, and toxic environments. Neglect is much more rarely associated with socioeconomically advantaged families (Slacks et al. 2004). Thus, neglect is considered by many not as a manifestation of 'abuse' but rather a condition almost always resulting from poverty."
The Friedman and Billick source (a literature review) states, "There is some ambiguity and debate over the definition of child neglect. What lack of action leads to neglect? Some researchers believe that child neglect and child abuse are one in the same, while others believe that there is a conceptual difference between the two. In a study done by Putman-Hornstein, Cleves, Licht. and Needell (2013), they broadly defined neglect as 'acts of parental omission that endanger children.' In this study, they compared instances of fatal injuries for children referred to child protective services for allegations of physical abuse compared with those referred for neglect. It was determined that children referred for physical abuse sustained fatal injuries at a rate 1.7 times more frequently than those referred for neglect. Because of this, Putnam-Hornstein et al. suggest that there is a conceptual difference between abuse and neglect. Others disagree. In an article published by Single Parent Advocate, Cedrick Tardy (2012) writes, 'abuse and neglect are one in the same.' He defines unintentional neglect as an instance when a parent decided to put a priority of lower value over the ultimate well being of his or her child. Parents may even believe, he says, they are are acting in the child's best interest."
In other cases, sources are clear that whether or not the neglect or abuse was intentional is considered irrelevant. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for providing these sources. I will respond to the above points one by one: (1) I'm not sure what you are getting at. To reiterate at the risk of becoming tedious, I do not view the chapter by A. Mehnaz as a reliable source in the present context. Given the general definitional ambiguity in the field of child abuse and neglect, the important statement that "Many do not consider neglect a kind of abuse especially in a condition where the parents are involved as it is often considered unintentional" requires multiple high-quality sources to be reliable. The poor grammar alone makes interpreting this source dicey without potentially misconstruing its meaning, and at the least suggests that this source has a poor reputation for checking the facts. But in addition to that, the publisher, according to the New York Times, even had to withdraw a book once for plagiarizing Wikipedia! So I find this source to be highly questionable. However, even ignoring the above problems, this chapter is not a general summary, but focuses on South Asian countries specifically, as shown by the chart on page 101 and by the introduction. Such bias can sometimes be addressed with in-text attribution, but in this case I question whether it's worthwhile to keep the source. The introduction (p. 100) also states, "In Pakistan no official data exist on various types of Child Abuse. Neglect is the commonest type of abuse reported in various studies." Therefore, selectively quoting only the statement "Many do not consider neglect a form of abuse", etc. is misleading even in regards to the source's own words. (2) Some sources you've cited even use the words "child abuse and neglect" as to distinguish the matter. References to the parts of the texts that verify that this is their intent would be appreciated. (3) I never stated or indicated that I believe that child abuse never means both abuse and neglect. What you or I happen to believe is not relevant; this is not a forum for general discussion of the topic. (4) That one of the reasons child neglect may not be considered abuse is because the harm may have been unintentional or accidental is supported in the literature. It is not supported by the sources given here, for reasons which follow. (5) The quoted passage from Friedman and Billick (2014) ("There is some ambiguity and debate over the definition of child neglect...") says nothing about neglect being distinct because it is unintentional; in fact; it suggests the opposite. One part mentions that some researchers consider abuse and neglect to be different because of relative rates of injury; another part cites an earlier paper that says unintentional neglect can happen when parents believe they are acting in the child's best interest and that abuse and neglect are the same. To merge these two parts to imply something else would be original research. (6) Page 314 of Law in the Health and Human Services (2010) refers specifically to legal definitions in some U.S. states which classify neglect as less serious than abuse; the only reference to intentional or unintentional acts is in specifying the type of physical injury that can qualify as (physical) abuse; it does not mention "unintentional neglect" at all. (7) The excerpt from Forensic Nursing Science (2010), p. ? also deals specifically with legal definitions, and only in relation to some U.S. states. At the same time, it is clear that U.S. federal legislation does not draw a line between intentional and unintentional harm. (8) Page 774 of Encyclopedia of the Neurological Sciences (2014) refers to a specific set of circumstances in evaluating head injuries that do not affect the definition of neglect or abuse. It says nothing about distinguishing unintentional neglect from "abuse". (9) Page 220 of Mandatory Reporting Laws and the Identification of Severe Child Abuse and Neglect (2015) mentions that neglect is often not considered "abuse", or as "serious" as abuse, but says nothing about harm or neglect being unintentional. Rather, the emphasis is placed on the role of poverty in producing conditions that lead to neglect. (10) In other cases, sources are clear that whether or not the neglect or abuse was intentional is considered irrelevant. This is why the current wording puts undue emphasis on caregivers' intentions in cases of neglect. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
With regard to "What you or I happen to believe is not relevant; this is not a forum for general discussion of the topic.", there is no need to state that. I again remind you that I am not a newbie (nowhere close to being one) and do not have to be reminded of the rules. When I commented that "I never stated or indicated that I believe that child abuse never means both abuse and neglect.", I was referring to what could be interpreted as what you thought I was arguing. In other words, it seemed like you thought I was arguing that child abuse never means both abuse and neglect; I was not arguing that. While what we personally believe is not relevant in the context of what goes in the Wikipedia article, what we argue on the talk page in the context of the Wikipedia article is relevant.
As for the text in the article; as we know, I have it worded as follows: "Some health professionals and authors consider neglect as part of the definition of abuse, while others do not; this is because the harm may have been unintentional, or because the caregivers did not understand the severity of the problem, which may have been the result of cultural beliefs about how to raise a child."
That text is supported by the sources. But you take issue with the "this is because the harm may have been unintentional" part only, correct? And this is because of the poor grammar used by the JP Medical Ltd source for the aforementioned "Many do not consider neglect a kind of abuse especially in a condition where the parents are involved as it is often considered unintentional" sentence, and because the JP Medical Ltd source may be otherwise questionable? I am aware that Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers plagiarized Wikipedia (it was discussed at WP:Med), but I was not aware that JP Medical Ltd is from the same company. I had checked on that in 2014 to see if they are from the same company, and didn't find anything (maybe I didn't look hard enough). See that the JP Medical Ltd website is different from the jaypeebrothers.com website. JP Medical Ltd doesn't even yet have a wikilink and therefore does not currently redirect to the Jaypee Brothers article. But looking at this mareklewinson.com/jp-medical-ltd source, it states, "JP Medical is the wholly owned subsidiary of Jaypee Brothers, South Asia's largest and fastest growing medical publisher." So perhaps they are connected. Either way, I agree that it's best that we discard the JP Medical Ltd source.
But I view some of the sources I cited as being very clear that there are times that neglect may not be considered abuse because the harm was accidental or unintentional. The poverty aspect, for example, is not intentional harm (usually anyway), and the sources are clear about that. From what I've read of the literature for years, there is even less consensus on what child neglect entails than there is on what child abuse entails (despite the fact that child neglect is commonly considered a form of child abuse). Child neglect is distinguished from child abuse often enough, and those reasons do, in fact, include poverty and that "the harm may have been unintentional, or because the caregivers did not understand the severity of the problem, which may have been the result of cultural beliefs about how to raise a child." I felt you were partly trying to get this across when you added: "In general, abuse refers to (usually deliberate) acts of commission while neglect refers to acts of omission." Let's look at more sources, ranging over the years: This 2001 Human Development source, from Prentice Hall, page 217, states, "Child abuse refers to physical or psychological injuries that are intentionally inflicted by an adult, as discussed further in Chapter 8. It is distinguished from child neglect in that the latter is usually unintentional." This 2005 Child Neglect: Practice Issues for Health and Social Care source, from Jessica Kingsley Publishers, pages 44-45, states, "Should definitions of neglect: only apply to direct intentional lack of care or also apply to lack of care due to parental poverty, physical illness or mental illness?" It then goes on to list other aspects concerning the difficulty of defining child neglect, and states, "All of these, often implicit, issues within definitions of neglect will affect the population of situations and scenarios that will be considered neglect in defining research samples. This will vary, not just on value judgements about caring responsibilities, but also on the purpose of the research." This 2007 Child Neglect: Identification and Assessment source, from Palgrave Macmillan, page 3 and onward, is an excellent reference on the definitional dispute with regard to child abuse vs. child neglect, the various definitions of child neglect and the difficulty of defining it. The source is clear (on page 3) that "much of the literature on child neglect is American based, which raises transferability and interpretation across nations with different welfare systems." It also states (on pages 14 and 18), "Little attention is paid in the definitions to culpability. Golden et al., (2003) argue that to fail to consider this can blur the boundaries between abuse and neglect. They argue that neglect has roots in ignorance and competing [caregiver] priorities. Moreover, they argue that the [caregiver] is without motive and unaware of the damage being caused, whilst child abuse has an element of intentionality. However, if practitioners become over-exercised by determining whether the [caregiver] intended to harm the child the underlying causes and the implications of the act for the child may be lost (Erickson & Egeland, 2002)." This 2011 Recognizing and Helping the Neglected Child: Evidence-based Practice for Assessment and Intervention source, from Jessica Kingsley Publishers, page 116 onward, also notes that not distinguishing between abuse and neglect is considered problematic by some, and why that is. This 2012 The Oxford Handbook of Poverty and Child Development source, from Oxford University Press, page 69, states, "There is no gold standard to define childhood neglect, and there is considerable debate about the appropriate definitions, given the heterogeneity of children's needs (i.e, physical, emotional, safety, medical, educational), the purpose of specific definitions and criteria (legal versus clinical research), and the recognition that definitions vary by state. Indeed, Dubowitz (2006), a pediatrician, has suggested that there may never be a single definition of neglect, given the multiplicity of purposes for its definition. [...] Some argue that neglect requires the deliberate or 'extraordinary inattentiveness' of the parent or caregiver (Polanksy, Hally, & Polanksy, 1975). However, others argue that the proper focus should be on the needs of the child without assigning responsibility and regardless of cause (Dubowitz et al.,1993). In sum, there remains considerable controversy about the specifics of defining and identifying child neglect." This 2013 Safeguarding and Protecting Children in the Early Years source, from Routledge, page 76, doesn't consider child neglect to be accidental, but it does distinguish between child abuse as deliberate and child neglect as likely not being deliberate; it states, "Simply by its definition, much child abuse, as defined in previous government guidance, is deliberate; it would be difficult to argue that acts of physical, sexual or emotional abuse are accidental (HM Government 2013: 85). Neglect can perhaps be different, in that the 'intention to neglect' is sometimes more difficult to establish; neglect -- while not accidental -- is often the result of apathy or ignorance, or the result of the caregiver's own experiences. Some what paradoxically, there is a convincing argument that when neglect is deliberate it can actually become something else -- a different form of abuse." This 2015 Teen Legal Rights, 3rd Edition source, from ABC-CLIO, page 191, when speaking of distinguishing between child abuse and child neglect, relays, "Some states have a separate definition for 'child neglect' that focuses on the negligent conduct by a parent or guardian instead of intentional or reckless conduct that leads to harm to the child. Other states use the terms abuse and neglect as synonyms." This 2015 Child Development From Infancy to Adolescence: An Active Learning Approach source, from Sage Publications, page 279 states, "Maltreatment is the broad, overarching term that covers both abuse and neglect. [...] Abuse more specifically includes deliberate and intentional words and actions that cause harm or potential harm to a child, whether the abuse is physical, sexual, or psychological. Neglect is the failure to provide for the basic physical, emotional medical, or educational needs of a child or failure to protect the child from harm or potential harm (CDC, 2014e)." It clearly distinguishes abuse from neglect by categorizing abuse as deliberate. And, of course, there are also sources that state child neglect is or can be deliberate.
So the article stating "Some health professionals and authors consider neglect as part of the definition of abuse, while others do not; this is because the harm may have been unintentional, or because the caregivers did not understand the severity of the problem, which may have been the result of cultural beliefs about how to raise a child." is not undue weight. Nor is it WP:OR. It is a summary of why child neglect may not be considered part of the definition of child abuse. The "some health professionals and authors consider neglect as part of the definition of abuse" and "the caregivers did not understand the severity of the problem, which may have been the result of cultural beliefs about how to raise a child" parts are certainly supported by the Friedman and Billick review source; I advise you to read the entire source. The wording "Some health professionals and authors" should be "Some health professionals, authors, and laws," based on some sources I cited above. And, of course, based on sources I cited above, there is much more to state. I would also be interested in any proposed wording you may have for the aforementioned passage, based on the sources we've cited and concerns you have. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Page 69 of The Oxford Handbook of Poverty and Child Development and page 76 of Safeguarding and Protecting Children in the Early Years certainly appear to support the statement that some professionals and authors consider unintentional neglect to be different from abuse. On the other hand, Pages 14–18 of Child Neglect: Identification and Assessment only mention one source arguing that neglect is ususally unintentional. To render this as "some authors" would definitely be Wikipedia:Weasel wording, in that it implies multiple separate sources. Ditto for "some health professionals, authors, and laws" as a summary of the other sources mentioned. That might be OK for a lead section written in Wikipedia:Summary style, but for the main text of any article, Wikipedia:No original research is clear that "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research". This applies as well to page 279 of Child Development From Infancy to Adolescence: An Active Learning Approach; which does not specifically link neglect with unintentional acts. Describing abuse as "deliberate and intentional" as they do does not imply that neglect is necessarily unintentional, even when they are treated separately. This source also states that "Maltreatment [i.e. abuse and neglect] includes any act by a parent or caregiver that results in harm or potential harm to a child" in line with the CDC's definition: "Any act or series of acts of commission or omission by a parent or other caregiver that results in harm, potential for harm, or threat of harm to a child". This contradicts any definition of neglect as being mainly solely unintentional [wording modified 15:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)].
Also, since my objections to the use of Friedman and Billick's paper have so far been ignored, I have posted a query under Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard § Disputed interpretation of review article in Psychiatric Quarterly for addtional input [modified 16:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)]. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I mainly provided the Child Neglect: Identification and Assessment source, because, like I stated, it "is an excellent reference on the definitional dispute with regard to child abuse vs. child neglect, the various definitions of child neglect and the difficulty of defining it." As for it mentioning one group of researchers arguing that child neglect is usually unintentional, the point is that it's clear that some researchers distinguish child neglect from child abuse because child neglect more so has an unintentional aspect to it. And I've provided more than one source (other than the JP Medical Ltd source) where you can see that the text directly supports that child neglect may be distinguished from child abuse because child neglect more so has an unintentional aspect to it. If I were simply arguing that sources commonly cite child neglect as unintentional, I would have provided a lot of sources for that, but I'm not arguing that. As for using "some authors," we already state "some health professionals and authors"; so stating "some authors" is not too different when it comes to WP:Weasel wording. And like WP:Weasel wording notes, "Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed." In this case, "clearly attributed" does not mean WP:In-text attribution. I asked about this before at the guideline's talk page. In this case, "clearly attributed" is referring to the sourcing. In-text attribution wouldn't work in this case because not only are these authors not WP:Notable, and we'd therefore be listing a string of non-notables, but in-text attribution would make it seem like only these authors hold this view, which would be a misuse of in-text attribution. WP:In-text attribution is very clear about not misleading in such a way. It's not just authors anyway; these are scholars with knowledge in the field. And like Template:Who states, "Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Wikipedia should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only 'Some people...'—then Wikipedia must remain vague."
As for the rest, with regard to original research, by adding "laws"... The Teen Legal Rights, 3rd Edition source quite clearly notes that "Some states have a separate definition for 'child neglect' that focuses on the negligent conduct by a parent or guardian instead of intentional or reckless conduct that leads to harm to the child. Other states use the terms abuse and neglect as synonyms." It is separating child abuse from child neglect because of the "intentional or reckless conduct" aspect. And I view the Child Development From Infancy to Adolescence: An Active Learning Approach source as clearly distinguishing abuse from neglect by categorizing abuse as deliberate. It literally separates the two and states "Abuse more specifically includes deliberate and intentional words and actions." I do not think most editors would argue that it's original research if that source was used as an additional source to support some type of "Child neglect may be distinguished from child abuse because it may have a lack of intentionality." wording. But I'm not focused on including "laws" at the moment anyway.
Your objections to the Friedman and Billick source have not so far been ignored; disagreeing with you is not the same as ignoring you. I'll address the matter at the noticeboard you took the issue to. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
And as for your statement here that "[t]his contradicts any definition of neglect as solely unintentional," no one in this discussion stated that child neglect is solely unintentional. Neither did any of the sources. What some of the sources do show is that child neglect may be defined as unintentional (and, really, there are many sources stating child neglect is usually unintentional or that most cases of child neglect are unintentional), and also that it may therefore be distinguished from child abuse. I was very clear that definitions of child neglect vary, and that we should be clear about that in the Definitions section. This is why I cited the part of the Child Neglect: Identification and Assessment source that notes the definitional dispute with regard to child abuse vs. child neglect, the various definitions of child neglect and the difficulty of defining it, and where it specifically states that "much of the literature on child neglect is American based, which raises transferability and interpretation across nations with different welfare systems." This is why I cited the part of the The Oxford Handbook of Poverty and Child Development source which states, "There is no gold standard to define childhood neglect, and there is considerable debate about the appropriate definitions, given the heterogeneity of children's needs (i.e, physical, emotional, safety, medical, educational), the purpose of specific definitions and criteria (legal versus clinical research), and the recognition that definitions vary by state." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Using the word child maltreatment instead of child abuse, and the Definitions section

Coconutporkpie has been making a number of edits to the article using the term child maltreatment in place of the term child abuse, even where the term child maltreatment is not needed, and even when the sources are clear that the terms are used interchangeably, almost as if preparing to have this article titled Child maltreatment. This McCoy Child Abuse and Neglect source that I provided in the Discussion section of the RfC above, and which Coconutporkpie decided to use, is clearly even partly titled "child abuse," and does not take any hard stance on distinguishing the terms. With this edit (followup edit here), I stated that we "should consistently use 'child abuse' since that is [the] title of this article, and the term used in the vast majority of the literature. 'Child maltreatment' should only be used when necessary or when the source specifically uses that word." WP:OR does not apply to WP:Alternative name cases unless the alternative names are clearly being distinguished. With this edit, Coconutporkpie re-added "maltreatment" in place of "abuse," stating that maltreatment "is the term used by the source cited." I state that there is no reason at all to use "maltreatment" in place of "abuse" for the following sentence: "Definitions of child abuse can vary across the sectors of society which deal with the issue, such as child protection agencies, legal and medical communities, public health officials, researchers, practitioners, and child advocates." Even this CDC source is clear that the terms abuse and maltreatment are often used interchangeably, and it's safe to state it's talking about the terms child abuse and child maltreatment.

With this edit, I expanded the Definitions section to make it clear why some researchers do not consider child neglect to be child abuse; I used two sources for that: A JP Medical Ltd source and a literature review. Although I placed the McCoy Child Abuse and Neglect source beside that sentence, the McCoy source was only meant to support the "Some health professionals and authors consider neglect as part of the definition of abuse, while others do not" part of the sentence (you know, where it was already placed by Coconutporkpie). Sure, I could have moved the McCoy source there, right beside the semi-colon, after I expanded the material, but I saw no need to do so, especially since all three sources support that aspect.

I then made tweaks, noting, "And, yes, I think we should address the interchangeability and 'can vary across the sectors' part first. The specific organizations' views should come after we address that; that's why it's currently in the [third] paragraph." That is how I prefer the Definitions section to be. I do not see why the CDC source should be in the second paragraph like this instead of in the third paragraph where the rest of the views from organizations are. I also noted that "I prefer better sources than JP Medical Ltd, but what this JP Medical Ltd source states is supported by better sources, including the review."

With this edit, Coconutporkpie removed the important and sourced detail about why some researchers do not consider child neglect to be abuse, stating, "Removed misleading content—JP Medical not an authoritative source. Centers for Disease Control (2008) states that harm need not be intentional for acts of commission/omission to be considered abuse/neglect." And I reverted, stating, "JP Medical Ltd need not be an authoritative source." There was nothing misleading about my text. And WP:MEDRS is very clear about what type of sources it allows; it states, "Ideal sources for such content include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies." In other words, views from organizations are not the only things allowed, and, in my experience editing medical articles here, they certainly are not consistently preferred over literature reviews. Furthermore, the CDC is U.S.-centric. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: With this edit, I see that Coconutporkpie did add the review source back; it was added to the Neglect section. Because I restored the Definitions section to the way I formatted it and the Definitions section is for the definitional disputes, I removed the text from the Neglect section. And with this edit, I moved the placement of McCoy source, since Coconutporkpie has a problem with it being where it was after I expanded the material there. And I added some of Coconutporkpie's wording on the child neglect differentiation. I think it is important to keep the "because the harm may have been unintentional" aspect, which is not only supported by the JP Medical Ltd source but by the literature review. And with this edit, I restored one minor change that Coconutporkpie made. But when it comes to the order of that section, I prefer the current order, which I view as more logical. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:No original research § Using sources, "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source [...] In short, stick to the sources." Regarding this edit, the term maltreatment is most consistent with the meaning of the CDC document cited, which is discussing abuse and neglect together. The CDC is clear that in its wording, maltreatment refers to acts of comission ("abuse") and acts of omission ("neglect") Therefore, to replace maltreatment simply with abuse here would be misleading. If the word maltreatment is offensive for some reason, then abuse and neglect would be a more appropriate replacement. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Please note that per Wikipedia:Civility, "So-and-so has a problem with X" is not appropriate for an edit summary, or anywhere on Wikipedia, for that matter. Please refrain from making personal comments about other editors. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this and your "07:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)" argument, I reiterate that "there is no reason at all to use 'maltreatment' in place of 'abuse' for the following sentence: "Definitions of child abuse can vary across the sectors of society which deal with the issue, such as child protection agencies, legal and medical communities, public health officials, researchers, practitioners, and child advocates." That is the same exact thing that is stated about the definition of child abuse, which is the name of this Wikipedia article and the term that child maltreatment is used interchangeably with. Not a WP:OR violation. This has nothing to do with the term child maltreatment being offensive, but rather with what I stated above in this section. I will use a different source for that aspect, with changes made to the sentence, since you are insisting that the line is a CDC-sourced matter and that we must use the term child maltreatment for it instead.
And do note that your interpretation of WP:Civility is at conflict with my interpretation of it, and that I already commented on your talk page about your strict interpretation of the rules. You are free to report me for civility issues, and see if others agree with you on the report. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The continued repetition of an argument without reference to Wikipedia policies or reliable sources is simple obfuscation that violates the spirit of Wikipedia:Consensus. Please avoid such long, rambling, and repetitious comments. I have explained above why I think the wording change is misleading, with reference to the relevant policy. And per Wikipedia:Article titles § Treatment of alternative names, There is also no reason why alternative names cannot be used in article text, in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article. Therefore, the term maltreatment is perfectly valid, and even preferable, when what is meant is both abuse and neglect together, as the source cited does. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 08:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The way you cite rules generally makes no sense to me, and I've been editing this site since 2007. Also keep in mind that the "continued repetition of an argument" aspect applies to you as well. Same goes for the "long, rambling, and repetitious comments" aspect. Nothing you have argued mandates that the word child maltreatment should be used in place of child abuse for the aforementioned sentence; I've pointed out that none of the rules support you on this. It is you insisting that this sentence must use the word child maltreatment instead. And when it comes to WP:Alternative names, I am the one who stated (above) that "WP:OR does not apply to WP:Alternative name cases unless the alternative names are clearly being distinguished." You arguing that it is perfectly valid to use child maltreatment because it is an alternative name is like me arguing that it's perfectly valid to use child abuse because it is an alternative name. The only difference is that you are insisting that we use child maltreatment because you view the sentence as a matter that better represents the topic of child maltreatment, which means that you are distinguishing between between child abuse and child maltreatment. You are incorrect since the "can vary across the sectors of society which deal with the issue, such as child protection agencies, legal and medical communities, public health officials, researchers, practitioners, and child advocates" part is what is stated about child abuse as well, and since child abuse is also commonly defined as "both abuse and neglect together." Either way, I already told you that I would be changing the sentence with additional sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
"...because you view the sentence as a matter that better represents the topic of child maltreatment" is another instance of making inappropriate personal comments about other editors. Please do not presume to tell me what my views are. "As a matter of polite and effective discourse, arguments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people", per Wikipedia:No personal attacks. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
And once again, you take offense too easily. We are allowed to use the word you and directly reference editors; I suggest you accept that. Otherwise, you will be complaining about how I communicate on talk pages quite often, and to no avail. You should also accept that repeatedly pointing significantly experienced Wikipedians to policies and guidelines they are well aware of is nothing short of patronizing; then again, I'm sure you know that. And, as promised, I changed the aforementioned text (with sources) to be more accurate. If you have an issue with these changes I've made, I am more than willing to pop over at WP:Med and ask them to weigh in on this too. As I've already stated, the "definitions varying" aspect is not simply an "Oh, this is a child maltreatment matter." And considering that both terms are commonly used interchangeably and that the "can vary across the sectors of society which deal with the issue" and "communication across disciplines can be limited, hampering efforts to identify, assess, track, treat, and prevent such abuse" aspects are noted when defining child abuse or child maltreatment, this latest dispute is quite silly and very much a waste of time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The response "you take offense too easily" to repeated requests to avoid personal statements is astonishingly rude and shows a total lack of understanding of what is meant by civility. As for the wording added here with the addition of new sources, Fisher and Lab (2010) consistently refer to child abuse and neglect, not simply child abuse, as in the quote "Due to the lack of standard definitions of child abuse and neglect, reporting suspected child abuse and neglect is surrounded by much confusion and ambiguity" (p. 86). This is also the case with the CDC's Child Maltreatment Surveillance, alluded to above (p. 11). Per Wikipedia:No original research § Using sources, abuse and neglect should replace abuse in this article's discussion on the lack of consistent definitions, specifically the phrase "efforts to identify, assess, track, treat, and prevent such abuse", which cites the above sources. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 10:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Once again, you take offense too easily, inappropriately cite WP:Civility and WP:OR, and patronize. Do report me at any time if I've really been so rude. As for the text I've added, there is nothing wrong it. You made it seem like the "can vary across the sectors of society which deal with the issue" and "communication across disciplines can be limited, hampering efforts to identify, assess, track, treat, and prevent such abuse" aspects are only a child maltreatment matter; they are not, and, per my "09:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)" comment, it makes no sense to argue that. I included the latest sources that I added to show that the definitions of child abuse or child maltreatment "can vary across the sectors of society which deal with the issue" and that, because of this, "communication across disciplines can be limited, hampering efforts to identify, assess, track, treat, and prevent such abuse." The sources I added support that. There is no need to add "child neglect." The definition of child abuse commonly includes child neglect, as sources in the article show. The definition of child maltreatment includes child neglect even more so, as sources in the article show. What is the point in stating that "Definitions of child abuse, child neglect or child maltreatment can vary across the sectors of society which deal with the issue," as though child neglect is usually separated from the child abuse and child maltreatment categories? I will now be asking WP:Med to weigh in on this dispute. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Contacted WP:Med. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
With this edit, I changed "such abuse" back to "child maltreatment" since some sources note that child neglect may not always be considered abuse, and since "child maltreatment" gets the point across without being redundant. And by "redundant," I mean adding "abuse and neglect." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I just read over the article, and read the main sources their from the CDC, WHO etc, and was surprised by what I found. It seems that the term of art is "child maltreatment" which encompasses child abuse and child neglect. It seems like it was specifically elevated because when people hear "child abuse" they too often think of acts commission and well, neglect child neglect. Eg [http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/childmaltreatment/index.html the current CDC website says" says: "Child maltreatment includes all types of abuse and neglect of a child under the age of 18 by a parent, caregiver, or another person in a custodial role (e.g., clergy, coach, teacher). There are four common types of abuse:
Physical Abuse
Sexual Abuse
Emotional Abuse
Neglect"

and the WHO has the exact same formulation: "Child maltreatment, sometimes referred to as child abuse and neglect, includes all forms of physical and emotional ill-treatment, sexual abuse, neglect, and exploitation." - they add/break out "exploitation" but it is the same formulation of maltreatment = abuse + neglect. Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, yeah, this was discussed in the #RfC: Should the lead sentence use a broader definition of child abuse? section above. See the sources I provided in the Discussion section there, which are clear that some researchers include child neglect as part of the definition of child abuse while other researchers do not, usually because child neglect may be unintentional. On top of that, there is still the fact that child abuse is the more common term and is often used interchangeably with child maltreatment. I argued that there is no need to move the article to "Child maltreatment," and that variations and disputes regarding the definitions should be briefly addressed in the lead and elaborated on in the Definitions section, similar to what we do for the Domestic violence article and other articles. In the case of this latest dispute, I was arguing that there is no need use maltreatment in place of abuse for the following sentence: "Definitions of child abuse can vary across the sectors of society which deal with the issue, such as child protection agencies, legal and medical communities, public health officials, researchers, practitioners, and child advocates." I argued that because this is the same exact thing that is stated about the definition of child abuse, which is the name of this Wikipedia article and the term that child maltreatment is used interchangeably with. I then provided sources supporting this. After I did that, Coconutporkpie felt "abuse and neglect" should replace "abuse" for the following sentence: "Since members of these various fields tend to use their own definitions, communication across disciplines can be limited, hampering efforts to identify, assess, track, treat, and prevent such abuse." I stated, "There is no need to add 'child neglect.' The definition of child abuse commonly includes child neglect, as sources in the article show. The definition of child maltreatment includes child neglect even more so, as sources in the article show." But I eventually changed "such abuse" back to "child maltreatment" since some sources note that child neglect may not always be considered abuse, and since "child maltreatment" gets the point across without being redundant. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
On a side note: Doc James briefly weighed in on the matter at WP:Med. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I hear you. It seems to me that key public health agencies use the term "child maltreatment" to be sure that neglect is captured, and careful writing in Wikipedia should either use the umbrella term or, when speaking generally, use the phrase, "child abuse and neglect". Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog, so you think this article should be moved to "Child maltreatment" even though child maltreatment is less common than the term child abuse and is often broader in its definition? And/or are you suggesting that we generally use the term child maltreatment in place of child abuse throughout the article? The reasons that I disagree with moving the article to "Child maltreatment" is that not only is child abuse the more common term, but researchers are not in agreement that all forms of child neglect are child abuse. And yet, child maltreatment, which is commonly used interchangeably with child abuse, consistently includes child neglect. And I don't think it's a good idea to consistently use the term child maltreatment in place of child abuse when the article is titled Child abuse and/or when the sources are stating "child abuse" rather than "child maltreatment," and/or are clear that using either term is acceptable. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog, also take note that the WHO does not really distinguish the terms child abuse and child maltreatment, not usually anyway. That's why this WHO source (page3) states, "Child abuse or maltreatment constitutes all forms of physical and/or emotional ill-treatment, sexual abuse, neglect or negligent treatment or commercial or other exploitation, resulting in actual or potential harm to the child's health, survival, development or dignity in the context of a relationship of responsibility, trust or power." And that's why I made this edit. The source clearly uses the words abuse and neglect, though, in ways to suggest that they are distinct. My point is that although the terms child abuse and child maltreatment are obviously sometimes distinguished in the literature, we should only distinguish them when necessary (such as in the Definitions section when explaining the definitional difference). I don't mind distinguishing child abuse and child neglect when necessary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I hear you. I meant what I wrote above. I started by just doing a plain old google search for WHO child abuse and then CDC child abuse and the results there surprised me, as both their current, main, public-facing pages use the term "Child maltreatment" and when I dug, I found the consistent language I mentioned above - either that, or "child abuse and neglect". This seems to be the current term of art. Folks who care about harm to children seem to care about about both active abuse and "passive" neglect. Unless you are suggesting that this article only deal with abuse, and that there should be a higher-level article that deals with both abuse and neglect, I don't really understand where you are coming from... Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog (I'm not sure if I should keep pinging you when I reply), I'm not suggesting that this article only deal with abuse. I'm stating that the term child abuse is the more common term and commonly includes "child neglect" as child abuse. Neglect is also considered abuse. If one looks at the sources on child neglect, including in the Child neglect article, that person will see that child neglect can be intentional or unintentional. And intentional harm to a child is always considered child abuse (well, except for some cases of corporal punishment). I'm stating that the terms child abuse and child maltreatment are defined the same way often enough, even by the WHO. So why should we be preferring the term child maltreatment over the term child abuse, except when necessary? I see no need to use child maltreatment in place of child abuse unless doing so is needed. Child maltreatment is broader than child abuse often enough, but it also means the exact same thing as child abuse often enough, and so I don't see why we should be preferring child maltreatment over child abuse. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
i hear what you are saying. i guess there is some tension here between WP:COMMONNAME and what term the field is actually using. You cannot deny the evidence from the CDC and the WHO that I outlined above (they use "maltreatment" or "abuse and neglect" -- i mean for pete's sake even the title of the chapter you linked to above is "child abuse and neglect".) to be frank what I see is you kind of blowing that off. ack. Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
If "Neglect is also considered abuse", as was pointed out above [1], then the part in the Definitions section that cites A. Mehnaz ("Many do not consider neglect a kind of abuse") is misleading. See new talk section below: Unintentional neglect not considered "abuse"?. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not blowing it off, Jytdog. Above, when pointing to the WHO source I cited, I even stated, "The source clearly uses the words abuse and neglect, though, in ways to suggest that they are distinct." I also stated, "I don't mind distinguishing child abuse and child neglect when necessary." I've been clear that the literature is using both terms (child abuse and child maltreatment), often in the same exact way; the WHO source I pointed to shows that, stating, "Child abuse or maltreatment constitutes all forms of physical and/or emotional ill-treatment, sexual abuse, neglect or negligent treatment or commercial or other exploitation, resulting in actual or potential harm to the child's health, survival, development or dignity in the context of a relationship of responsibility, trust or power."
In this case, it seems we are not fully understanding each other. You were mainly focusing on distinguishing "child abuse" and "neglect," while I was mainly focusing on noting that child abuse and child maltreatment are synonyms and that I do not see why we should use child maltreatment instead of child abuse (unless the use is needed). I don't view the WHO or the CDC (which is U.S.-centric) sometimes or mostly leading with the term child maltreatment to mean that child maltreatment is generally preferred over, or is more accurate than, the term child abuse these days. There are a number of times when the WHO has been at conflict with the general literature on a topic. That stated, I suppose we've stated all we need to state on this matter. I don't mean to frustrate you, so I will leave it (our discussion) at that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I do understand that you view the terms as synonymous. You have made that very clear. Repeatedly. You are not representing what I am saying correctly. Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

There are a number of times when the WHO has been at conflict with the general literature on a topic. That's interesting, but more relevant to improving this article is whether the WHO is a reliable source in this specific context. Any such doubts can be addressed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. As to the CDC being United-States-centric, that is not necessarily a problem, according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Bias in otherwise reliable sources can be addressed with in-text attribution. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 09:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

On the subject of moving the page. Step one is to decide what the article is about. Step two is to choose a name. These steps must be done in order. There is no point in trying to choose a name for this article until you have a good consensus for what is and isn't supposed to be the subject of the article. For example, if you decide that this article is about "bad behavior except neglectful forms of bad behavior", then maltreatment would not be appropriate. But you can't decide that until you've decided what the subject is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The point of what I've stated about the WHO and the CDC, when it comes to being careful with them as sources, is that we do not prioritize such sources at the expense of the general literature. If such sources are at conflict with the general literature, then we do not present material as though what those sources state is the be-all and end-all on such matters. The literature is clear that there is no consensus on a number of things when it comes to defining child abuse and child neglect. This is why I stated to you in the #Discussion section above, "And sources like the World Health organization (WHO) apply to a number of things, including gender, but we don't use its definition of gender as the main definition at the Gender article; this is because the definition of gender varies widely in the literature. Similarly, definitions of child abuse vary." We should be even more careful with sources like the CDC, since it is U.S.-centric. I do not have a problem with in-text attribution where appropriate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the addition here of some new sources to support the statement:

Definitions of child abuse or child maltreatment can also vary across the sectors of society which deal with the issue, such as child protection agencies, legal and medical communities, public health officials, researchers, practitioners, and child advocates. Since members of these various fields tend to use their own definitions, communication across disciplines can be limited, hampering efforts to identify, assess, track, treat, and prevent child maltreatment.

The cited pages from Hersen (2011): "Lack of clarity and consistency of definitions of child abuse adds to the complexity of child abuse assessment [...] Moreover, definitions of various abuse of child abuse vary widely" (p. 550) and Fisher & Lab (2010): "Due to the lack of standard definitions of child abuse and neglect, reporting suspected child abuse and neglect is surrounded by much confusion and ambiguity" (p. 86) only vaguely relate to the article text, so I removed these citations. A more relevant source to add here would be Child maltreatment: An introduction (1999), pp. 14–15: "Various child advocates and professionals involved in the field of child maltreatment define the problem differently, depending [...] on their professional goals and purpose."
I also find it curious that such caution is being urged in relation to the CDC being "U.S.-centric" while the sources I removed are equally so; for instance, Hersen (2011) states, "For the purpose of this chapter, child abuse will be defined in a manner consistent with the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children" (p. 550); Fisher & Lab (2010) are concerned mainly with mandatory reporting laws in the United States; and Conley (2010) focuses on "Anglo-American countries such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom" (p. 53). —Coconutporkpie (talk) 02:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I reverted you here and here because you removed "child abuse" when the "definitions of child abuse can vary across the sectors of society which deal with the issue," and since this is supported by the sources. These sources are not being U.S-centric when commenting on that aspect. I also reverted you because the sources support parts of the following passage: "such as child protection agencies, legal and medical communities, public health officials, researchers, practitioners, and child advocates. Since members of these various fields tend to use their own definitions, communication across disciplines can be limited." There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that says that a source used for a sentence or a paragraph must support the entire sentence or paragraph. It's common that sources are not always used that way, as indicated by WP:Citing sources, WP:REFPUNCT, and WP:Citation overkill. I also see no need to rely only on the CDC for that passage. And as for a 1999 source, it's better to use more up-to-date sources when possible and appropriate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I made this, this, this and this change because I see that you separated the content that so the aspect about the definition of child abuse varying is covered first, and then the aspect about the definition of child maltreatment varying is covered next. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that says that a source used for a sentence or a paragraph must support the entire sentence or paragraph—this completely misses the point, which is that each statement in the article should be attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly, according to Wikipedia:No original research. And Wikipedia:Citing sources in fact states that the whole point of inline citations is lost if those citations are not clearly placed—see WP:INTEGRITY. This is not a style question such as addressed at WP:REFPUNCT; it relates to whether the article text is verifiable. However, WP:REFPUNCT in fact states that "The ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies", not all be stuck at the end of a sentence where their relevance to the text is not clear. Wikipedia:Citation overkill is a personal essay, not an official policy or guideline, and so does not outweigh the above policies.
These sources are not being U.S-centric when commenting on that aspect? Please show some evidence that this is the case. To me, this is complete nonsense. Otherwise, all of the preceding caveats about the Centers for Disease Control can also be discarded when it's convenient to do so. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 05:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I fail to see how what I stated about sourcing "completely misses the point." You are arguing for what you consider "clear placement." I am stating that how the sources are placed is fine, per my previous arguments, and that there is no Wikipedia rule against the placement. Not to mention that, as noted in my above "04:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)" post, I changed the placement further.
As for the U.S.-centric aspect, when sources, like Hersen (2011), state that "lack of clarity and consistency of definitions of child abuse adds to the complexity of child abuse assessment [...] Moreover, definitions of various types abuse of child abuse vary widely", there is no proof whatsoever that they are only referring to the United States. Enough of the sources are clear that the definitions have varied, and still vary, across the world. And either way, most of the literature on child abuse, including child neglect, pertains to what you referred to above as "Anglo-American countries such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom." In the #Unintentional neglect not considered "abuse"? section below, I even provided a source that states "much of the literature on child neglect is American based, which raises transferability and interpretation across nations with different welfare systems." My problem with you using the CDC source is that you were prioritizing it at the expense of the general literature; my above "00:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)" post was my most recent post making that clear. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
This discussion is going around in circles; I have referenced Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to show that the placement of the citations is not fine. The "proof" is in the texts and policies I have already cited. Wikipedia:Citing sources further states that "when there are multiple sources for a given sentence, and each source applies to the entire sentence, the sources can be placed at the end of the sentence", but that "having multiple sources listed separately after sentences, with no indication of which source to check for each part of the text" creates confusion—see WP:CITEBUNDLE. The citations to Fisher and Lab (2010) added here and Hersen (2011) added here do not apply to the entire sentence in each case. If anything, these citations themselves could be a form of Wikipedia:Citation overkill, as in "sometimes editors will stack citations that do not add additional facts or really improve article reliability". —Coconutporkpie (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
This discussion is going around in circles because we disagree and are essentially stating the same thing over and over. From what I see, you have not justified that the way I have the disputed reference placement is wrong or is against one of our policies or guidelines. I told you before that I do not cite the way you do in one case. This yet another case where we differ on citation style. Furthermore, as I've have stated more than once, guidelines are not policies; they are merely there to advise; we do not always have to do the exact thing a guideline states. Guidelines usually allow leeway. The wording you are citing from these guidelines are not even stating that we must cite the way you are stating we must cite. And if I saw confusion with the current placement, I would agree with you, but I see no confusion. The Hersen source clearly applies to the following sentence: "Definitions of what constitutes child abuse vary among professionals and between social and cultural groups, as well as across time." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Child abuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Child abuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Child abuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Why isn't this addressed by the article?

In the introduction, it doesn't say anything about whom the offender's age has to be in order to qualify as a child abuser. I think this is very important to point out because if a child themselves or a teenager (who technically still qualify as children by law despite what others may say) harms another child then it is most certainly not child abuse. BigEncycloFan (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Large Block Quotation

Hello, I am a new Wikipedian and am learning how to evaluate articles. One thing about this page that stood out was the large block of text directly quoted from the World Health Organization in the section describing the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study. While I understand that the goal is to provide the WHO's summary of the study, the large amount of direct quotation appears problematic. 6ibberish (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Child abuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Linguistic abuse

Hi Flyer22 Reborn.

I refer to your revert of my edit re linguistic abuse.

I have for the moment reversed your reversion on grounds of consistency.

I also refer you to the article my edit links to, namely Marta Laureano. This article relies on the same sources.

I added the material re linguistic abuse as part of a deorphaning process for Marta Laureano, which has been languishing, isolated as an orphan for it seems ten years.

I would argue that if the article Marta Laureano has sufficient merit to stay in Wikipedia then so does the material re linguistic abuse.

Deorphaning is as much about bringing long term isolated articles to the attention of editors more familiar with the subject, such as yourself it seems, so that they can better deal with them, as it is about building the network of articles within Wikipedia.

Accordingly, I would ask you to either PROD or AfD Marta Laureano if the linguistic abuse material is not strong enough, or both should stay. Either way it should not languish as an orphan for another ten years.

Regards. Eno Lirpa (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Eno Lirpa, read WP:Undue weight. Do you understand it? I ask because it seems that you don't. You chose to revert to this undue piece despite my pointing you to the WP:Undue weight guideline. So either you clicked on the WP:Undue weight link and did not understand it or you did not even take the time to click on the link. "Linguistic abuse" is not a typically cited form of child abuse, and one judge ruling it a form of child abuse in the United States does not make it a typically cited form of child abuse. It is a significant minority viewpoint, and you gave this significant minority viewpoint a section under "Types." That is WP:Undue weight. It matters not whether Marta Laureano is WP:Notable. From what I can tell so far, she is not. But her notability hasn't a thing to do with your undue weight addition. I am not required to first seek the deletion of her article before removing your undue weight addition. WP:Orphan is also not a valid reason to add an undue weight addition to an article. And since it seems you do not understand any of this, I'm not going to argue you further on this issue. Instead, I will give you time to revert or make your case further. But after that, if it appears that you still do not understand how you have violated WP:Undue weight, I will take the matter to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. And if this issue is not resolved there, a WP:RfC will be next.
If we are to retain your addition at all, it should not be its own subsection under "Types," as if it is a typically cited form of child abuse. If anything, it should probably go in the "United States" section. And if not there, maybe the "History" section if this judge's ruling is the first of its kind in the United States (or otherwise). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Please assume a bit of good faith here. There is no need to come on so heavy handed. I have moved it as per your suggestion to be a sentence in the United States section. I am I believe rather open minded as to how best to link this material into the rest of Wikipedia, if it stays at all. Yes I believe I do understand UNDUE, and yes my first attempt at linking it in was not the best it could have been. The whole point of deorphaning is to get other editors better familiar with the subject aware of otherwise lost articles relevant to their area of interest. My own view is that the article being linked to possibly fails UNDUE in its own right. By linking it in here my/our hope is that editors such as yourself can do it better if need be. However, just removing the link helps no one. It certainly does not help the orphaned article which just languishes again. I would hope that you would also be able to consider the linked-to article as well. It itself may put an UNDUE bias on the whole subject area and-or fail GNG. Not being familiar with subject area as you seem to be, I will leave that to you. Regards. Eno Lirpa (talk) 12:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Eno Lirpa, expecting an editor to read a policy I point them to when a dispute is at hand and it appears that the editor is unaware of or not very familiar with that policy is not me disregarding WP:Assume good faith. I apologize for coming across snippy. Thank you for moving the material to one area I suggested. I don't think that it perfectly fits there since the United States section is a subsection of the Prevalence section, but it's better placed there than where it previously was and its inclusion/placement in the article can be revisited at a later date. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Flyer22 Reborn. Eno Lirpa (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Adult child abuse

Do you think this topic should be discussed too? Should this be added to the Child abuse article or just be it's own seperate article on it's own? Adult child abuse is abuse towards children who are legally considered adults (aged 18 or higher) as opposed to minors (aged 17 or lower).

It could start during early adulthood or just be continued abuse from childhood.

Many adults experience this from their parents nowadays and is often VERY overlooked.

Thanks.

Mateoski06 (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Mateoski06 (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Mateoski06, this article is specifically about child abuse -- abuse of children. What WP:Reliable sources do you have pertaining to adult child abuse? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Will this work? [1] [2] Mateoski06 (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Mateoski06, I wouldn't use rolereboot.org. See WP:Reliable sources. As for adding material on the matter, it doesn't belong in this article. It belongs in the Abuse article. Or the Domestic violence article. You should propose the text at the talk page of the Domestic violence article before adding it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

______________

References

  1. ^ http://www.rolereboot.org/family/details/2015-08-when-parents-still-abuse-their-adult-children/
  2. ^ https://www.alternet.org/personal-health/when-parents-still-abuse-their-adult-children

Abortion

This article is called child abuse. Child abuse is defined in the lede as "physical, sexual, or psychological maltreatment or neglect of a child or children, especially by a parent or other caregiver."

Abortion (sex selective abortion in this case) cannot be defined as child abuse, unless you agree that fetus=child. To do this in this article would be a serious breach of WP:NOPV, because it would mean we are taking a position on issues such as beginning of human personhood or fetal rights, which would be unacceptable. The section was initially untitled (it functioned as an introduction before sections started), then it was titled suggestively "Abortion and infanticide", therefore explicitly equating abortion with "child abuse", and then (after the first reversal of the section) it was retitled simply "infanticide", but with the same content, implying that abortion=infanticide - again a breach of NPOV. The section also contains other suggestive content, with excessive details on the practice of sex selective abortion, such as "anywhere from 12 weeks of pregnancy to even full term". Apart from the fact that this is not scientifically accurate (sex selective abortion can be performed as early as 7 weeks with new blood tests that can determine the sex of the fetus as early as that [2]) adding such information is unnecessary, and in the very sensitive context of abortion, where extreme care should be employed in maintaining neutrality, such details (which in this article do not serve any purpose) can be interpreted as promoting the views of the anti-abortion movements who very often use sex selective abortion as an example as to why they advocate outlawing or restricting late term abortion. Editing on abortion topics must be done with extreme caution, avoiding, in all circumstances, to take any side (directly or indirectly). Because abortion is such a sensitive topic, there are special policies, such as the Arbitration Committee.

I have, for now, removed the section. Consensus must be reached on whether sex selective abortion should be mentioned at all in this article (which after all is about child abuse) and if it is to be mentioned, how it should be done, and in what section, and what wording should be used. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:567F:9348 (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Removed references suggesting abortion as child abuse. The rest is relevant background to infanticide, such as why the numbers of girls missing does not add up even when taking sex selective abortion to account. I am still waiting for the reasoning behind removing the entire section. Surely it is not that you have not read it, because you also added to the infanticide material, such as the information concerning Pakistan. JustBeCool (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

What?

What is "parental warmth?" Are there parents with a body temperature below 98 degrees Fahrenheit? 184.181.12.187 (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Child_abuse/Archive_4&oldid=869033547"